With U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visiting NATO for the first time, Germany pushed back Friday against U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated demands that allies increase their military spending.

Tillerson is the third Trump emissary to visit NATO headquarters in recent weeks and insist that allies show his boss the money by devising specific plans to reach a previously agreed target of spending 2 percent of annual GDP on defense.

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Vice President Mike Pence brought the same message on separate visits in February.

But exasperation has been rising in Germany, especially after Trump marked Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to Washington by tweeting that Berlin “owes vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!”

German officials, including Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen, rejected that assertion and fired back that Trump did not understand how NATO’s finances actually work.

German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who like Tillerson was attending his first NATO ministerial gathering, told journalists in Brussels that the U.S. was wrongly interpreting a 2014 declaration by NATO leaders in Wales to step up efforts to reach the 2 percent goal. He said that while Germany was working to increase military spending, the target was not mandatory.

“Germany has to invest more in its defense capabilities … we have already increased defense spending by 13.7 percent under NATO criteria and will it increase by a further 7.9 percent,” Gabriel said. “It’s necessary because our army is not in a responsible shape.”

“The idea that Germany in a few years will spend €70 billion each year on the army is … absurd” — Sigmar Gabriel

“However,” he said, “it is important to correctly quote the Wales declaration. Its guidelines say members should lean towards a 2 percent spending, but it is at no point written that this is a fixed goal and that every member state should invest 2 percent of its GDP in defense.”

Germany is the EU’s biggest economy and currently spends about €37 billion on its military, roughly 1.2 percent of GDP, according to NATO statistics. To reach the 2 percent target would require nearly doubling that spending — an enormous increase in real terms.

Gabriel noted that Germany would have to increase its spending by nearly the amount of France’s total annual military spending, and that it would be hard to know what to do with all of the money.

“The idea that Germany in a few years will spend €70 billion each year on the army is an idea that I consider absurd,” he said. “It’s particularly absurd if we look at France which spends €40 billion but has also a nuclear program included in it. I would honestly not even know where to put all the aircraft carriers we would buy with €70 billion.”

‘Nonsense’

Gabriel remarked that some countries meeting the target could not afford to pay essential social benefits to their citizens — a comment probably aimed at Greece. One of only five NATO countries to meet the target, it has in recent years relied on a bailout largely financed by Germany to keep its economy from collapsing.

“The nonsense of such an assumption is evident if we look at those countries that are spending 2 percent of their GDP on defense but cannot even pay for pensions of their citizens,” Gabriel said.

The Wales declaration called on allies not meeting the 2 percent spending target to “halt any decline in defense expenditure; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; aim to move towards the 2 percent guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO’s capability shortfalls.”

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at NATO headquarters in Brussels | Emmanuel Dunand/AFP via Getty Images

Other NATO allies said they had reversed military cuts and were working to raise spending; some echoed Gabriel’s point that contributions could not be measured in money alone. “We have already reversed course, making sure that cuts to in defense were stopped,” said Italian Foreign Minister Angelino Alfano, adding that other contributions, such as Italian search-and-rescue operations for migrants in the Mediterranean, should also count.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has worked to win support for NATO from Trump and his aides, stressing that allies are already working hard to both raise spending and to address another demand of the Trump administration — doing more to combat terrorism. He will visit the White House in mid-April to prepare for a NATO summit in late May.

Tillerson echoed Trump’s call for NATO to focus more on terrorism, and he issued a statement critical of Russia, which continues to support an ongoing military conflict in eastern Ukraine.

But some diplomats pushed back, arguing that countries like Russia, North Korea and Iran pose a far greater danger than terrorists and should be the real focus of a military alliance like NATO.

“NATO is not a CT (counter-terrorism) operation,” one NATO diplomat said, noting that the recent attack on Westminster carried out by a U.K. citizen acting alone was a matter for national police.

new guy

Emanuele

A simple tip for Mr. Gabriel: if 70 billions (2 percent of his current GDP) is too much, Germany could halve his GDP and continue to spend the same amount of today.

Posted on 3/31/17 | 11:07 PM CET

Corni

Wake up call for EU these countries lived for too long on boroughed wings taking for granted the American protection. Isn’t it surprising that even now after being called, they try to hide behind semantics. Not going to work with Trump.

Posted on 4/1/17 | 12:32 AM CET

Veritas-Semper

I don’t see why Germany should not spend the mandatory 2% on defense AND pay for the Greek pension fund as now Germany owns the Greek economy lock, stock and barrel.

Expect a tweet to this effect from the President.

Posted on 4/1/17 | 3:31 AM CET

Anne

This is a curious historical twist. Once upon a time Europe feared a large German army, but now Germany is being urged to build the largest army in Europe.

Germany also has no nuclear arsenal to maintain (like France, the UK and Russia) so all of its 2% target will be dedicated to building an oversized conventional army of tanks, aircraft and ships.

I wonder how Russia will react to this development. Russia spends about $40-50billion/year on its conventional army (excluding the $15billion cost of its nuclear weapons), so it would be outclassed by a Germany spending $70billion or more.

Posted on 4/1/17 | 10:28 AM CET

Louis Anthes

Very simple, how to handle the Germans.

Start closing US military bases, one by one.

They’ll figure it out.

Posted on 4/1/17 | 5:12 PM CET

mikael

Let us recall that *until Putin decided to restart the Cold War* on his own initiative Germany had no external threats. Were they expected to arm themselves to defend against… Czech incursions? The US had withdrawn the last of its armor from Europe some years ago. Its odd that Trump should now demand that Germany rearm when Trump himself maintains that Russia ‘did not invade Ukraine’. That’s a lunatic position to hold, but Trump holds it. If Trump maintains that Russia is not a threat why does he want Germany to rearm?

Posted on 4/1/17 | 6:15 PM CET

new guy

I don’t see a strategic reason to maintain any USA bases in Europe save the UK and maybe sicily

Posted on 4/1/17 | 11:51 PM CET

Matthew Marlowe

The point of multi-national treaty and having minimum spending guarantees is to ensure that if one member is attacked, the other members have enough spare units to contribute towards a group response. If Germany is arguing that it doesn’t need to meet it’s spending requirements because its own defense needs are minimal — that completely misses the point. The USA isn’t worried so much about Germany’s safety…..but if the EU wants the USA to defend it against russia or other threats, the USA needs to know that the EU has enough spare military to help defend the USA if a China versus USA war ever breaks out. Right now, American citizens and especially its president have no confidence, at all, that the EU would have any significant defense force to help the USA.

Posted on 4/2/17 | 12:03 AM CET

ab

Berlin has already worked for a long time hand in hand with Russia to undermine EU (as well as Ukraine’s) energy safety by building Nordstream, Nordstream 2 pipelines and granting control over Opal pipeline to Gazprom even against own EU regulations.

So why anyone should be surprised that Germany helps Russia undermine also NATO’s capabilities ?

Posted on 4/2/17 | 12:16 AM CET

Steve Ocu

The Germans should tell President Syphilis to get his discharge checked. Without the Ramstein Air Base and the Landstuhl Medical Center. American military adventurism is not sustainable in the Middle East.

Posted on 4/2/17 | 1:23 AM CET

Anne

The crux of the issue is the only military threat faced by NATO Europe is Russia and Russia includes the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in its military drills (such as in its simulations of invading Poland).

This means it doesn’t really matter if Europe spends 2% or even 10% on its conventional arms because without a nuclear deterrent, it cannot defend itself.

So perhaps its time for Europe to consider building its own nuclear deterrent kept under the aegis of the European wing of NATO. For if the US withdraws its nuclear umbrella or inserts doubt into whether it is actually functional, then Europe will be helpless to defend against Russian aggression.

Posted on 4/2/17 | 10:17 AM CET

ab

@Anne
In general you are right – EU needs a nuclear deterrent.
For the time being the EU is free riding on nuclear capabilities financed by American tax payers.
But such situation is unsustainable irrespective if Trump or someone else is US president – just look at growing US budget deficit and growing debt.
So I agree that EU should have own considerable nuclear capabilities, but key question is how to achieve that within current design of the EU where in practice Germany dictates the direction ?
And current German mindset is about cooperation with Russia and supporting Russia strategy in Europe (just look at Nordstream, Nordstream 2, Opal pipeline cases) which means undermining EU military and energy safety capabilities to maintain Russian superiority in those areas and Russian influence over EU and Europe.
So unfortunately with current German leaders (and moreover the UK outside of the EU) the EU won’t do anything that would undermine Russian advantage in those areas.

Posted on 4/2/17 | 4:18 PM CET

rw

is the idea that the US spends around 600 billion dollars on defense and pays for 21.7% of NATO not absurd? Germany may not be getting a ride on the US’s back for much longer

Posted on 4/2/17 | 5:43 PM CET

Danish guy

It is a classic mafia shakedown, buy our stuff, or else…Not many Americans aparrently understands that NATO is a important way for the US to project power abroad, so it is more important for the US than the EU.
Maybe Germany should buy European, Swedish, French, British hardware, and then listen to Trumpadump,s whining about how unfair the world is……

Posted on 4/2/17 | 10:43 PM CET

Danish guy

It is a classic mafia shakedown, buy our stuff, or else…Not many Americans aparrently understands that NATO is a important way for the US to project power abroad, so it is more important for the US than the EU.
Maybe Germany should buy European, Swedish, French, British hardware, and then listen to Trumpadump,s whining about how unfair the world is……jep…

Posted on 4/2/17 | 10:45 PM CET

Danish guy

rw
The absurd thing is that the US is spending more than the next ten on the list, in the world.
and nine of them are allies…
Bow down for your military industrial complex.

Posted on 4/2/17 | 10:50 PM CET

James Scott

“It’s necessary because our army is not in a responsible shape.”
And there’s the crux of the problem. Germany and many others are not in the slightest shape to defend themselves are willing to fight until the last dead American.

Posted on 4/2/17 | 11:09 PM CET

Jim Houghton

What’s depressing is that most of these foreign leaders speak English far better than our President.

Posted on 4/3/17 | 3:54 AM CET

Jimmy Jazz

And with the weight of history, who in Europe would be confortable with a massive German rearmement program conducted year after year…….Would you all be confortable with a nuclear Germany? This is Europe, balance of power matters, particularly in these unsettled times.

One question is if nations cannot fulfill their assigned tasks within the alliance. This needs to be corrected immediately when it happens. Another is mandatory spending measured in % of GDP, that would leave Germany with an army geared to supremacy not to defense.

Posted on 4/3/17 | 12:50 PM CET

Jimmy Jazz

@ Matthew Marlowe Of course but……. when it was offered to invoke the mutual assistance clause of the treaty , just after 9/11, who turned it down? The US did, to keep their hands free in their dirty Central Asian and soon to be Middle Eastern wars. As I said would you feel confortable sitting next to a Germany that adds one carrier and a couple of armored brigades and maybe a wing or two of attack aircraft a year, for how long? Ten years? Twenty? Come on…this is just nonsense from an ill prepared administration used to talk first and engage whatever brain it has later. As for all the people that screams here to retire american troops from germany, how will it go with / at this point former ) NATO countries retire their troops from Afghanistan, Iraq….you name it. Bah, what a bunch of morons.

Posted on 4/3/17 | 12:56 PM CET

new guy

@Danish guy.. I completely agree that the USA spends to much on defense .. pls Europe pay your own way and buy from your own defense companies .. so that the USA is not responsible for defending Europe and can reduce money spent for defense of Europe.

Posted on 4/3/17 | 9:25 PM CET

Alex

living off the UK AND USA for far too long. They owe billions to both these countries. Germany is a very selfish self centered country. Trump nor May should let them off the hook.